Gary Dimmock, Ottawa (Ottawa Citizen) – A disgraced Ottawa RCMP constable, who was ordered to quit or be fired for sexually assaulting a female officer at a boozy work party, is now fighting for his badge.
In a videotaped statement to The Citizen, Const. Mario Jimenez, 38, says “I’m not the monster that I have been portrayed.”
“I’m not here to minimize or ignore what I did, and the things like pain and disgrace I did cause,” Jimenez says. “I understand as an RCMP officer that it’s up to me to have higher standards than the regular public. But at the same time I want to remind everybody that I am a human being just like anybody else and I did make a mistake.”
Jimenez, who is suspended without pay, is awaiting an appeal hearing that has yet to be scheduled.
In June 2010, the RCMP disciplinary board ruled that Jimenez “essentially raped” a female colleague at a farewell party. In a drunken attack, Jimenez cornered the female officer, pinned her against the wall, and forced one of her arms behind her back as he fondled her breasts and degraded her with obscenities.
He says he doesn’t recall anything from the night in question. Even so he pleaded guilty to sexual assault at the disciplinary hearing. After the attack, other officers found him passed out in a bathroom.
“The female member resisted throughout this ordeal and the board finds that Constable Jimenez’s words and physical domination were indeed disgraceful and reprehensible. The board is concerned that although the physical aggression that transpired was not at the higher end of the sexual assault spectrum, (the victim) continues to live with the psychological trauma of the events of November 10, 2008, as evidenced in her (victim-impact statement). Constable Jimenez’s assault and derogatory comments continue to exert power over the psychological and emotional well-being of his victim,” the board ruled.
In his appeal to win a return to duty, Jimenez argues that the disciplinary board erred in its finding that his victim was “essentially raped.”
In the appeal filings, his RCMP lawyer also argues that the board had no supporting evidence to conclude that the officer’s “potential for recurrence is high.” The lawyer also cites a similar case that the board had heard just months earlier. Only in that case, the officer was only docked a week’s pay, whereas Jimenez was ordered to quit within 14 days or be fired.
Jimenez, a father of two young children, insists that the board ignored testimonials from four female RCMP officers who presented him as a family man who had an impressive policing track record.
“If I was given an opportunity to work with Mario again, I would work with him without hesitation,” Const. Heidi Ravenhill wrote.
Const. Christina Hendrix said she was comfortable around Jimenez on- and off-duty.
“I know him to be a great friend, a great person to be around, and have never had an issue with him,” Const. Penny Gavin said.
Jimenez immediately sought treatment for addiction after the 2008 sex assault and has been clean for almost two years. In 2010, he pleaded guilty to a lesser charge of assault in a deal that spared him a criminal record. Instead, Jimenez was ordered to perform 100 hours of community service. The RCMP disciplinary board, however, treated the case as a sex assault.
At the hearing, Jimenez expressed remorse, apologized and said he was a “family man”, but the disciplinary board was not swayed. The board branded him a disgrace to the national police force.
“The board agrees that the consequences of a police officer’s failed judgment can lead to the erosion of the cornerstone of the RCMP’s organizational values. Society expects and deserves a high standard of honesty, trustworthiness and integrity from its police officers. … A police officer is a person that occupies a position of trust and has a special role and status in the community. A breach of that contract of trust diminishes society’s confidence, and impairs the ability of the force to effectively function within the communities it serves.”
It was the officer’s first formal disciplinary hearing but far from the first time he had stepped over the line. In fact, the Mounties gave Jimenez his first chance the day they hired him in 2007, even though he admitted that he had used cocaine. In his first few years on the job, he damaged a cruiser during a night of partying, once grabbed at another female officer’s breasts, and showed up drunk for work — including the day he was supposed to represent the national police force at a Remembrance Day ceremony.
But Jimenez says that because discipline in those cases was informal, it should not have been revived and used against him at the formal disciplinary hearing.
Jimenez was born in Bogata, Colombia, and immigrated to Canada in 1989. He only spoke Spanish at the time and had to learn English before graduating from high school.
Before joining the Mounties, he worked as a checker at the Ottawa Airport and before that tended bar at the Château Laurier.
D “I wonder how long it was since using cocaine or was he still a user when he was hired.”
It would have to have been a minimum of three years as per the organization policy. You cannot refuse to hire someone unless their use is defined as chronic. Labor law is designed to protect the rights of individuals against the evil corporations. Designed to remove stigma from a person who has seen the error of their ways, it has backfired in cases such as this. sickntired is quite right about admissions. Only problem is if you admit to one use, could it have been 2 or 3? Only background check information could prove the individual to be downplaying their activity. And if none is found? Better to have an outright ban than a “limited use” policy.
D “It appears his career was a disaster from the beginning and the RCMP has if anything been too tolerant with this person”
Depends. If you look at the mandated by law “reasonable assistance and guidance”, a good lawyer will be able to argue to a less than stellar Judge that their efforts were not good enough in that vein. Ridiculous to be sure, but not unheard of.
D “The courts too often have rulings that have no relevance to reality and that is very disturbing.”
Your lips to God’s ear. It happens on a daily basis in this country. Unfortunately there is no recourse to their inane decisions. Any meddling is seen as interference with the “independence of the judiciary”. Their accountability is nil. The Judicial Council is a pox on real accountability to the citizens.
sickntired: “The answer is: the RCMP has had a big hiring push on for the past few years”
True, however if the HR component had had some foresight, they could have predicted a norm, kept the training academy open and would not have had to go into a frenzy.
Hot debate. What do you think?
18 
16
The RCMP knew full well prior to the closure of Depot that they’d be facing demographic issues down the road. The “baby boom” retirement wave was actually mentioned in training courses in Depot in the early ’80s so HR and management were certainly aware it would impact the RCMP as it would any other organization. Unfortunately they were ordered by the government of the day to drastically cut the budget (I used to know the actual amount but can’t recall it now) and the easiest way to do it was to close Depot. It was a short-sighted decision that we’re still paying for. The current push is too little too late.
Well-liked comment. Do you Like or Dislike:
19 
6
One thing I have been wondering is why he was hired in the first place after having admitted he used cocaine.
I wonder how long it was since using cocaine or was he still a user when he was hired.
It appears his career was a disaster from the beginning and the RCMP has if anything been too tolerant with this person.
I give credit that finally the process that usually takes too long has given him the boot and hope his appeal fails miserably.
The courts too often have rulings that have no relevance to reality and that is very disturbing.
Hot debate. What do you think?
18 
20
The answer is: the RCMP has had a big hiring push on for the past few years. They’re trying to keep the numbers up in light of two factors – “baby boom” members retiring like crazy, and younger people not exactly applying in droves. If they had to turn away everyone who admitted to previous drug use they wouldn’t be meeting hiring targets.
As for why did he admit to drug use? Because the RCMP, whether they hired him or not, can’t use that admission against him criminally and because it smart to admit to that sort of thing up front rather than lie about and get caught out later.
Not an ideal situation but that’s the reality.
Well-liked comment. Do you Like or Dislike:
18 
9
This is black and white issue and this mountie crossed the line and does not deserve to wear the uniform ever again.
I have to agree with the “Board”, he is a disgrace, look at his past and what a problem he is and has been.
If you can’t fire this guy for this what can you fire him for? Enough is enough, he has to go.
Well-liked comment. Do you Like or Dislike:
32 
11
An interesting case to follow. If they cannot be allowed to fire this degenerate, the consequences will be enormous.
The appealing of ““essentially raped.”” terminology is laughable. Also the questioning of the finding ““potential for recurrence is high.”” is more than supported by the noted past behavior, which hopefully was entered into the record.
I am not swayed by the supportive testimony of the co-workers who testified. The perpetrator’s track record speaks for itself.
I also find the deal making by the prosecution in the first incident most disturbing. More and more the courts are becoming ineffective in holding people to account. I use the small c purposely.
Well-liked comment. Do you Like or Dislike:
38 
4
Cst. Jiminez’ mistake was in point of fact he committed a forceable sexual assault. Lucky for him that he got a “deal” that spared him a criminal record. Had he been criminally charged for his previous attempt to paw a female member that would certainly have been taken into consideration and there would have been no “deal” this time.
Its ridiculous for him to argue that the RCMP Adjudications Board didn’t give sufficient weight to the testimony of four female members that he apparently hasn’t fondled. They gave it all the weight it deserved – none. These women must have awfully low standards. Two assaults, drunk on duty and cracked up a police car while partying – all in less than 2 years. And this “family man” stuff is crap … is he expecting a break simply because he fathered children? And as for arguing that his previous transgressions shouldn’t be taken into consideration – more crap.
Kick his ass out pronto. And lets hope that his supervisors (a) clearly documented his history of transgressions and (b) made some effort to address the boozing and groping behaviour, so that the decision to can him is upheld by the courts.
Well-liked comment. Do you Like or Dislike:
41 
1